Humanizing Business: Brand Research, Part 3 of 3

The Relational Capital Group (RCG) published some compelling brand research across seven different white papers in the April 2012 edition of the Journal of Consumer Psychology. As a continuation of our RCG research review, which began with Four Brand Dynamics Every Marketer Ought To Know and Three Critical Questions To Ask About Brand Relationships, the third abstract to focus on is the paper by Nicolas Keryn, Susan Fiske, and Chris Malone.

The abstract builds upon the Stereotype Content Model and tests several brands against the Intentional Agents Framework, which suggests consumers have relationships with brands much like they have with people. The study has the potential to change the way marketers think about brands and interactions with customers, consumers, and the general public.

People And How They Relate To Brands.

The concept that people relate to brands much in the same way they relate to people (and objects) has been around for more than a decade. The paper cites several studies, some dating back to 1998.

Although early research frequently refers to models of social perception developed in social psychology, we noticed that there is considerable crossover (not referenced in the paper) in the field of cognitive psychology. Simply put, cognitive psychology recognizes that people categorized people, places, things, qualities, etc. in groupings. This is an asset because it aids recall and association. It can also be a detriment because it provides the framework for stereotypes, incorrect or otherwise.

We can see this phenomenon in one of the examples provided by researchers. By asking people to assign warmth and competence to a variety of groups, they identify different groups as warmer or colder, more or less competent. For example, wealthy people might be seen as more competent but colder. The disabled as less competent and warmer. (Neither is necessarily true, I might add.)

Brands were categorized in much the same way. In the study, for example, Campbell's, Johnson & Johnson, and Coca-Cola all scored high in terms of warmth (intention) and competence (ability). Mercedes, Porsche and Rolex scored lower on warmth but high on ability. Veterans's Hospital, Public Transport and USPS scored high on warmth and low on ability. And AIG, BP and Goldman Sachs all scored low on competence and low on ability. (The paper includes 16 brands.)

It was mostly these brand clusters that suggested the combination of warmth (intentions) and competence (ability) was formed. These were also paired against another framework model, which showed how brands elicited feelings of pity, admiration, envy, and contempt.

Expectedly, the study found that well-intentioned brands received much higher warmth ratings. Unexpectedly, high ability brands also received slightly higher ratings, suggesting that brands with high  ability (those that do what they say they will do) have an advantage. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that marketers ought to strive for warmth and competence.

Although the researchers did not identity the correlation, the difference between brands scoring higher or lower on warmth is frequently tied to accessibility and frequency of contact as much as good intentions. Even brands that have earned public contempt are further hampered by their distance from the consumer, with many of their products being passed through to the consumer by another party.

What Does This Mean For Marketers And Brands?

While it only scrapes the surface, tempering the findings of this paper with the article presented by Jennifer Aaker, Emily Harbinsky, and Kathleen Vohs could be critical in any decision making. They argue that while warmth and competence is an ideal pursuit for many brands, they also found that competency is more important than warmth in spurring consumers to purchase.

One may also surmise that brands that do not naturally fit into a persona of warmth could undermine their own competence if they try too hard to exhibit that quality. In fact, the Aaker, Harbinsky, Vohs paper notes that brands that are overtly warm (like nonprofits) can unintentionally reduce the perception that they are competent. They also note that other brands, those that earn too much admiration, begin to express another emotion that wasn't necessity tested for in the original studies. That emotion is awe.

What this means for marketers and advertisers from our perspective is how important it is to tie the four brand dynamics and marketing messages to the observed mission, vision, and value statements. By observed, I mean mission, vision, and values that are actually being applied in every facet of operation (not those that collect dust in old annual reports).

It also suggests how companies ought to prioritize their overall operational objectives to how they want to position the company in the marketplace (as well as the appropriateness of that position), with an emphasis on competence (high quality products and services). And, although the researchers did not include for it, unless the company is trying to be disruptive in a space, degrees of warmth and competence can also be tied to the overall feelings people have toward an industry, the accessibility of the brand, and the frequency in which people come into contact with it.

To learn more about the papers and abstracts released to the study by RCG, visit their page dedicated to the research. The company specializes in the principles, process and science of lasting, mutually-beneficial business relationships. This study is groundbreaking in its ability to tie scientific data to long-standing theories within the fields of advertising, communication, and marketing.

Humanizing Business: Brand Research, Part 2 of 3

The Relational Capital Group (RCG) published some compelling brand research across seven different white papers in the April 2012 edition of the Journal of Consumer Psychology. As a continuation of our RCG research review, which began with Four Brand Dynamics Every Marketer Ought To Know, we look to the extension published by Deborah MacInnis.

While the original research concludes that consumers judge and interact with brands in much the same way they do with other people and social groups, it also suggests that brands which exhibit warmth and competence have an easier time establishing trust and long-term loyalty. MacInnis questions that conclusion, recognizing that relationships to people and objects are much more complex than that.

In fact, she suggests that warmth and competence are not necessarily traits for brands to exhibit as much as they might be outcomes related to the people involved in the relationship. In other words, when consumers trust a brand, they may judge the brand to be competent (trusted to do the job) and warm (trusted to have my best interest at heart) whether the brand exhibits those traits or not.

Three Critical Questions To Ask About Brand Relationships.

How Impacting Are Relationship Types? MacInnis suggests that if consumers do develop relationships with brands like they do with people, then the varied degrees of relationships might apply. For example, some brands might secure a committed partnership (best friends) while others might be emotionally intense but short lived, like a fling.

If this is true, marketers might consider the true psychological weight of social media, which tends to create more intense but superficial relationships en masse than committed relationships. In fact, many online connections are causal in that people who are already committed to brands seek out online relationships with those brands. They also require significant affirmation that the brand can live up to the relationship that they have come to expect offline.

Are There Consequences In Relationships? In practical terms, communication professionals generally believe that brands which are more trusted, competent, and warm are more likely to survive a crisis than brands that are perceived as cold or less competent. But MacInnis suggests that this might not be the case. She surmises that  the more committed a consumer is to a brand, the greater the impact any infraction might cause.

This idea correlates well with our Fragile Brand Theory, which suggests that the further brand perception drifts from brand reality, the greater the eventual crash. Where warmth and competence might help facilitate forgiveness are likely confined to one-time innocent mistakes. BP provides an excellent case study in this area, given the company had established a trusted position as leading the way in green energy, which one careless accident quickly undermined and angered people.

Does Everyone Become Attached The Same Way? There has been other research conducted on how people interact with and attach to objects that might be relevant here. From those studies, researchers have noted that there are additional relationship influencers, such as the degree of relationship anxiety people have or the degree of relationship avoidance they may have.

In such cases, some might require reassurance of the relationship status while others might avoid such attachment all together. The reason this is significant is that it demonstrates how warmth and competence might appeal more heavily toward one personality type than another. "Specifically, whereas brand warmth may be critical to individuals whose attachment styles are characterized by high anxiety, it may actually be a relationship deterrent to those whose attachment styles are characterized by high avoidance," MacInnis wrote.

The takeaway here for marketers is that even if evidence suggests that brand relationships occur much like individual or group relationships, it doesn't mean that marketing will be even easier. If anything, the conscientious marketer will recognize that brand relationships are as challenging to maintain as any relationship.

From our perspective, the relationship does not always occur by a brand's ability to exhibit certain admirable traits, but rather its ability to do what it says it is going to do. Ergo, one would assume that if warmth and competence are always the advantage, then an airline like Spirit Airlines could not exist. Instead, what we learn is that Spirit Airlines sets an exceptionally cold expectation (in potentially charging people for bathroom usage) but consumers accept it because the company is up front about it.

To learn more about the papers and abstracts released to the study by RCG, visit their page dedicated to the research. The company specializes in the principles, process and science of lasting, mutually-beneficial business relationships. This study is groundbreaking in its ability to tie scientific data to long-standing theories within the fields of advertising, communication, and marketing.

Humanizing Business: Brand Research, Part 1 of 3

The Relational Capital Group (RCG) published some compelling brand research across seven different white papers in the April 2012 edition of the Journal of Consumer Psychology. It was conducted in collaboration with social psychologists at Princeton University and University of Louvain.

The overall conclusion suggests evidence that consumers judge and interact with brands in much the same way they do with other people and social groups. As a result, brands that exhibit warmth and competence have a greater ability to establish trustworthiness and long-term loyalty.

"It turns out that recent efforts by brands and companies to digitize, automate and outsource their interactions with consumers are fundamentally at odds with the way humans perceive, judge and build loyalty to brands," said Chris Malone, co-author of the lead research paper and chief advisory officer of the Relational Capital Group. "As a result, consumers are more cynical, distrustful and disloyal toward large brands and companies than ever before." 

After studying the seven interrelated abstracts, I thought it might be useful to explore and highlight several of them this week in three parts, with the first abstract highlighted [Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012), 186-190] written by Kevin Lane Keller, professor of marketing, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College. From the Keller abstract, marketers can extract four brand dynamics.

Four Brand Dynamics Every Marketer Ought To Know.

Brand Knowledge. It is broadly defined as all the attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and experiences that become associated with a brand or, in other words, represents the collective exposure someone might have to a brand. As my firm has said before, it can be generally defined as the net sum of all positive and negative experiences as they are tied to brand equity.

Brand Functionality. One of the standout observations in Keller's paper notes that while some brands attempt to appeal to consumers by focusing on image, the most successful brands tend to first ensure that their products and services are made, sold, advertised, and discussed in a way that profoundly affects consumers in the head and the heart. It underpins what I call the Fragile Brand Theory in that everything begins with the product or service and not the "image."

Brand Credibility. Most brand credibility is established not by what brand says, but what it does (and what it says about what it has done). It is best established by their ability to provide products and services that fully satisfy customer needs (which is sometimes offset by the expectations they make); their ability to be honest, dependable, and sensitive to those needs; and their ability to be likable (fun, interesting, dynamic, or any other personality descriptor). For most brands, establishing credibility seems to be much easier than maintaining it.

Brand Resonance. Keller introduces the concept as it refers to the nature of the consumer–brand relationship and, more specifically, the extent to which a person feels that he or she resonates or connects with a brand and feels “in sync” with it. It conjures the words of Phil Dusenberry, former chair of BBDO Worldwide, who seemed to know this instinctively.

The Impact Of Duplicity Between Functionality And Resonance.

One of the most pressing challenges for marketers is operating within the confines of communication that makes sense for the individual brand. Ideally, as outlined above, the most successful brands develop specific products or services that meet customer expectations, and then communicate that functionality in such a way that it connects with select customers.

Instead, where some brands struggle is in their attempt to alter communication with the hope of reflecting a personality or image that appeals to the public (or segmented market) even if those qualities they communicate do not exist. Within social media, others adopt "popular personas" that appear to be successful on specific social networks, even if that image does not reflect their functionality of the brand.

As an illustration, imagine a mediocre technology company attempting to talk its way into being on the cutting edge of its field. While the "talk" might attract attention, it could also set expectations too high for a company more suited to push affordability. Another example might be how many companies attempt to create likability by being fun on a social network like Twitter, but then staffing their brick and motor locations with drones who would rather be somewhere else.

Unfortunately, such tactics tend to create the perception of duplicity between the brand functionality and its resonance, much like Malone pointed out. As a result, the brand continually loses credibility until it eventually collapses. Conversely, marketers that are able to address both their strengths and shortcomings in an authentic way that makes sense for their products, services, and culture stand to have an easier time connecting with consumers and establishing brand loyalty.

To learn more about the papers and abstracts released to the study by RCG, visit their page dedicated to the research. The company specializes in the principles, process and science of lasting, mutually-beneficial business relationships. This study is groundbreaking in its ability to tie scientific data to long-standing theories within the fields of advertising, communication, and marketing.

Marketing To Hispanics: Think People First

Ten percent. That is the number of people in the United States who can trace their ancestry to Mexico. It doesn't include any other Hispanic or Latino cultural connections, which is why I'm sometimes baffled by the way companies try to segment Hispanics and the way some Hispanic organizations suggest those companies market to Hispanics.

If you ask most of these companies and consultants, they seem to think Hispanic marketing means adding Spanish messages to their marketing mix or making a Hispanic media buy. The Forbes article (referenced above) even highlights a Volkswagen spot as an example.

It features two white guys who listen to a Spanish tape during a car trip. At the end of the spot, they speak Spanish. That's it?

Don't misunderstand me, it's a brilliant little spot. But the reason that it works has nothing to do with dropping in Spanish. The spot is about gas mileage, which is a cross-cultural message. It could have been French and had the same impact. It just feels more relevant given the increasing number of people who speak Spanish (as a first and as a second language).

I might be more convinced if they added subtitles for English or dropped the subtitles for Spanish. But more than that, I don't believe Hispanic marketing simply means adding foreign flags, select fashions, subtitles, and actors who look the part. It's about doing your homework and understanding cultural values while avoiding cultural sensitivities. 

But doesn't this apply to everyone? Depending on your product and your market, it always makes sense to consider cultural values and sensitivities. It could be any group, even those that aren't based on heritage. It might include socio-economics, job description, faith, or political views too.

Likewise, it seemed disingenuous that the thrust of the article suggests that companies sustain a dialogue with Hispanic consumers rather than trying to push a message with monologue.

The secret to market segmentation is listening to individuals over groups. 

The dialogue tip isn't exclusive to Hispanics — it's a marketing lesson that includes everyone. And therein lies the problem with choosing market segmentation based on demographics alone. Marketers really need to do their homework and have a dialogue with consumers because Hispanic has become too big of a segment to work.

In the United States, for example, Hispanic is usually defined by the government as "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race." Each of these sub-segments are as unique as the various sub-segments by the overly generic term Asian. And in some cases, those subgroups can be segmented too (Mexico is a big country, with many regional and urban-rural differences if you take the time to listen).

So where does that leave us? Hispanic marketing seems like a good idea today because research points to a rapidly growing Hispanic population that retains a significant amount of their cultural heritage (more so than many European immigrants). But over the long term, the Hispanic culture in the United States will not be synonymous with Hispanic culture as it is identified today.

It will eventually be something else, which it already has if you consider just how different Hispanics in California are when compared to Hispanics in Texas (or how different Californians and Texans are for that matter). In other words, marketing segmentation works but it works its best when marketers assess their entire customer base instead of trying to appeal to national demographics. Think global, act local.

In fact, it might surprise some to learn that the difference between Apple and Droid consumers is greater than the difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic smart phone subscribers.

Segmenting Publics: Can Online Moms Be Segmented?

MWW published an interesting, albeit curious, survey on the behavior of moms online. According to the mid-sized agency, moms can be broken into five types as illustrated by the nifty graphic (which links to the the agency's infographic). The study alludes to the idea that not all moms are created equal.

It's very, very dangerous territory to tread; I even thought twice before sharing it. But then I thought I might offer up why over-segmentation sometimes backfires. Before I do, here are the five types of digital moms they identified:

• Mobilizers. The youngest segment (average age 33) is hyper-connected, driven by the desire to connect with friends, and interested in pop culture. They are easily influenced by celebrities and prefer mobile devices as their primary tool for staying connected.

• Urban Originals. The smallest, most influential segment of digital moms (average age 35) lives in mostly urban areas, view themselves as influencers, and frequently interact on social networks. They also create 90 percent of the content generated by moms and are the biggest influencers.

• Practical Adopters. The working moms segment (average age 45) uses digital technology to harmonize their professional and personal lives and manage their families. They are too busy to be on the cutting edge. They look to urban originals and mobilizers to keep up on trends.

• Casual Connectors. The lowest average income segment (average age 47) uses digital technology to connect with their close circle of family and friends (particularly their children) and are influenced by the preceding groups. They prefer simple technology and few have adopted smart phones.

• Wallflowers. This segment of digital moms (average age 34) prefers to browse and consume content rather than create it. More than half are full-time homemakers, and are visual and entertainment focused. These moms are highly interested in tablets, read what others share, and enjoy sites like Pinterest.

My advice? It's an interesting attempt, but never confuse online behavior with demographics. 

I've worked with lots of moms online for the better part of a decade. I tend to agree with another study that suggests moms know best. Not some of them or certain segments, but all of them all the time.

Beyond the case studies I mentioned in the moms know best brief, I've also seen them at work on very large-scale projects that range from the cancellation of the television series Jericho and shaping of Days Of Our Lives to social good campaigns like Human Rights and March of Dimes (and scores of others).

And in observing or working with all them (including the demographics captured by MWW), I've noticed only one thing is certain. When faced with an issue they care passionately about (or their friends feel passionately about), moms will jump these so-called spheres faster than you can blink.

Further, the concept of micro-targeting along these lines is also fraught with peril and misses opportunities. You never really know when a wallflower might become the rally point or pass it to her long-time friend who happens to be a quasi-celebrity. In fact, it was one of these under-the-radar moms that connected the Bloggers United: Human Rights campaign to Amnesty International because she was only one degree of separation away.

If you want to create a micro-targeting effort, don't consider supposed behavior styles as the model to follow. What you really want to do is look at their areas of interest, which is how most people are motivated online. Don't waste time chasing influencers because they don't exist. Nurture relationships with like-minded people. Otherwise, you might as well start assigning them klout scores.

Making Bottle Rockets: Plan, Test, Execute

The unceremonious flight of my son's science project took place on the night before the project was due. The bottle rocket that his teacher intended to jettison 20 to 50 feet in the air using water and compressed air sailed through the air on its own, not outside like it was intended, but inside after it was hurled across room in frustration.

"What the heck?!?" 

"It's not working. Humfph,"was all my son said.

He had an ambitious idea to bring more than a neon green 2-liter bottle to school for his experiment, which is a good thing. But he also had the idea to mount the thin edge of his air foil fins to the outside of the bottle, which wasn't such a good thing. There simply wasn't enough surface area on the fin to attach it to the curvature of the bottle. 

That in itself wouldn't have been a big deal. What was a big deal was that it was already 9 p.m. and the project was due the next day. He needed a redesign, which also required me to keep some of my parental angst about procrastination from adding too much insult to injury (although I might have mentioned an X-box vacation; meaning for the X-box, not him). 

Three little words that could save most small business social media programs. 

Plan. Test. Execute. Those three little words that could have saved my son's bottle rocket from suffering the same fate as the Vanguard TV3, which was the first attempt of the United States to launch a rocket into outer space and crashed onto the liftoff pad after flying four feet. It could also save most small business social media programs. 

What my son did to his science project is what most people do in social media. Whatever they see being done looks so easy and effortless that they rush toward completion. But the rub of this kind of thinking is always the same. If it looks so easy that anybody could do it, it's anything but easy. 

This is why social media programs are launched every day without any foresight. Many small businesses (and big businesses too) take the advice of enthusiasts to jump right in for success. But much like the thin edges of a foil fin, they never plan their with enough surface area to stick. 

What surface area am I talking about? Content that connects. If you haven't planned out the kind of content you are offering — articles, videos, white papers, bon mots — and why that content might be important to the people you want to attract, who's going to care about what you share? (Certainly somebody will care, just not the millions that seem to make up most social media success stories.) 

Plan. What topical spheres make sense for your customers? How often will you be able to produce it? What do you intend to do when you don't have anything to produce? How does it contrast against what everybody else is already offering? And what's going to make it stick with your select group?

Test. Just because you can think it, doesn't mean it will work. I still remember one of my marketing teachers (a former engineer) who lamented having built one of the first working hovercrafts in the 1970s. They built and sold a few, just not enough to keep the doors opens. 

Execute. Once you are reasonably sure the idea will work, then you can execute, measure, and adjust. And, if you have enough foresight, it might not be a bad idea to have a contingency plan too. The web's virtual landfills already have too many abandoned blogs and social network accounts. 

For my son, the solution was easy enough. While I feigned disinterest to see what he was going to do, I sketched out three possible solutions. He could glue pre-slotted cardboard panels to the bottle, with the fins sliding into the slots. He could cut the fins, splaying the bottom inch or so to create more surface area. Or he could find clear packing tape that would provide support on both sides of the fin. 

The testing phase ruled out the first two ideas. There was no more cardboard and cutting the fins carried too much risk. Using the clear packaging tape was perfect, maybe even better than anyone hoped. It held the fins in place without obstructing the paint job. For additional stability, he added drops of glue at the top and bottom of all three fins, where they connected to the bottle. Done.

Sure, had he invested more time into the planning, the fins might have even been shaped to be more aerodynamic in order to give his bottle rocket more lift. But considering the quick fix became the contingency plan, he settled for cosmetics. Some social media plans do too, but never as well as they could have if someone had sketched out a plan before they hit 'join.'

Changing Media: PR Pros Need To Follow

While more public relations pros (those that aren't too niche) know the scope of their work exceeds media relations, it's still important to keep up with some of the changes journalists are making every day. Recently, Ragan's PR Daily highlighted one change. Phone interviews are becoming past tense.

Ragan Daily cites a number of reasons that this is becoming true, including the relative ease of finding sources on social networks. But even more than that, most people (reporters and sources) agree that email interviews can sometimes be more efficient.

Every question is laid out. Every question is answered. The margin of error in misquoting someone is almost eliminated. And there are no wasted minutes trying to navigate the chain of command to sync something as a schedule to make the call.

The trend can easily be debated. There are plenty of reasons reporters would want to conduct a phone interview or possibly conduct one in person (especially if they want to sniff out a better story). There are also plenty of reasons a client might want one too (it creates a better opportunity to establish a rapport).

Journalists are evolving beyond email interviews too; public relations pros take note. 

When Bruce Spotleson, publisher of Greenspun Media, spoke to my Writing For Public Relations class a few months ago, he was very clear about changes that are occurring in journalism. And much of it doesn't sound like journalism as most public relations pros were introduced to it.

Nowadays, journalists are asked to consider the tone of a story for the web as well as print. All of them take cameras wherever they go. Most of them are armed with video cameras (or smart phones too).

Understanding social media is an absolute must. Not only do they use social networks for sources, but they listen intently — looking for potential stories, trends, and the occasional dust up. The idea that journalism is somehow separate from the Internet anymore just doesn't ring true.

Along with a more visible presence online, many are being asked to be more presentable offline. I'm not talking about suits and ties like journalists wore before becoming an acknowledged profession. But I am talking about being presentable enough to appear on camera or, on occasion, bring eyewitness testimony to bear on specific events. Even if the paper never runs the video, all of it makes for great archives.

All in all, the future journalist is going to be much more malleable with the times, virtually fusing the distinctions that people used to see between print reporters and television news teams. In the very near future, they will be one and the same with some emphasis on web trends.

Right, newspapers are tracking web trends with IT departments making suggestions based on which stories are read, how long they are read, and how much they are shared. While this doesn't necessarily mean reporters won't use old-school strategies for investigative pieces, it does impact the general fodder that is published every day — and might even impact which sources are chosen long term.

Where public relations professionals ought to take note if they haven't already. 

Ten years ago, it was relatively easy to distinguish strategic communicators (e.g., corporate communications) with public relations. Strategic communicators were most commonly generalists in their practice. Public relations professionals were generally specific, with an emphasis on external communication to specific publics (of which the media were one).

Anymore, it's not so easy to tell the difference. Public relations professionals and corporate communication professionals pass tasks back and forth all the time. And who is responsible for what is more dependent on the employer than the field.

Still, I don't think corporate communicators will be the driver to change public relations. I am starting to believe media will be the driver. If journalists become multifaceted professionals who are social media/social network savvy, video proficient, and occasionally offer on-air commentary, then it stands to reason public relations professionals will have to match those skill sets and then some.

Appreciating Education: Lessons From Five Teachers

"The most decisive factors in education are the student's hunger for knowledge and willingness to learn, coupled with the teacher's passion in their material and faith that the student is capable of learning anything." — Rich Becker

After teaching as an adjunct instructor for continuing education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for more than 12 years, I don't believe anything else matters in education. It's one of the things I learned this year from my gang of six (the smallest class size since I started teaching).

After I racked my head trying to determine why this group broke all previous records and vetted every other possibility, there wasn't anything left. These students delivered 100 percent attendance, 100 percent assignment completion, 100 percent rewrite completion, and did extra credit (even if they didn't need to).

Every student showed marked improvement, approximately two letter grades, with four of the six either earning or having the potential to earn better than 90 percent. In other words, the equivalent of an "A" in a professional field that I frequently tell students consistently produces "C" level work, with few standouts.

In previous years, only one student typically scored better than 90. Last year, not even one of them did.

My original thought was that their performance was the by-product of class size, the general evolution of my presentation material, or because I literally read the five things writers need to teach themselves out loud. But it really wasn't any of those things. At the end of the day, this class was hungry for knowledge and had a willingness to learn. It made my job easy because I am passionate about communication (especially written and visual communication) and believe anyone can learn it better than the industry's low standard.

Teacher Appreciation Week Is May 7-11, 2012. 

This week is Teacher Appreciation Week. And even though teaching is something that I can only afford to do part time, I thought it would be fitting to thank five teachers who probably had the most influence on how I teach today, along with what they taught me beyond their subject material.

• Richard Pyle (7th grade, junior high school). He taught me to always work outside comfort zones because it is outside our comfort zone that we are most likely to find something that will change our lives.

• Ms. Duffy (9th grade, high school). She taught me that we're not doomed to repeat history as long as we're smart enough to study it and understand it without putting our own bias into it.

• Betty Sabo (9-12th grade, high school). She taught me that we alone ultimately make our own choices and, in doing so, determine whatever outcomes come our way.

• Warren Lerude (sophomore/senior year, college). He taught me how perception makes most of us only one or two questions away from changing our minds despite our strongest convictions.

• Ron Cooney (junior year, college). He taught me the most clever idea in the world isn't worth beans unless it can be executed and then presented in such a way that it delivers results.

These lessons had an impact on how I teach because I include them in my own lessosn: the importance of research, the ability to be empathetic, the character to be accountable, the courage to challenge ourselves, and the fearlessness to pursue our dreams.

It might not be what one expects from people who taught subjects like reading, history, forensics, media law, or copywriting. But one has to have an open mind for those teachers who have the audacity to believe in you. I'm grateful. And I hope that you have teachers who have touched your lives too.

Learning From Rock Stars: Mike Posner On Brands

Ever since I can remember, people have likened being in social media to being a rock star. But is it really?

After watching the Vans Warped Tour: No Room For Rockstars this weekend, there is little doubt in my mind. There really isn't a parallel between social media and the music industry — unless, of course, you really do have an act.

"At the end of the day, I'm a brand, you know. Well, me as a person is not a brand," says Mike Posner. "But me as an act, Mike Posner, is a brand."

At 24, Mike Posner gets it. He is signed with RCA. As a pop/hip hop artist, he is as good or better than anyone in his genre. He also has 1.7 million Facebook likes, better than most "social media rock stars."

Although I admit that his music isn't my thing, Posner is the real deal. And the reason I admire him is that he understands the difference between brands (acts or companies) and individuals (people). At the same time, he also understands the value of the brand and why it's important not to blow it.

"Every piece of music that I put out is part of that brand," says Mike. "Every partnership that I enter into has to make sense to my brand. Or, I don't do it."

A few days ago, I wrote about why a brand is not a person and how to be a person without worrying about your brand. But like most posts that touch on personal branding, the only people who really read them already understand the difference between brands and people. The ones who don't understand the difference are more inclined to read something else like, you know, how to improve your online brand.

This is also one of reasons that I liked Posner's insights so much. There doesn't have to be a distinction between your so-called personal brand and professional brand (unless your professional brand is an act) because the context defines the difference. Posner can be a bit different on stage than he is off stage.

In fact, another artist on the Vans Warped Tour: No Room For Rockstars lamented that sometimes he struggles with who people want him to be. Another talked about how much they appreciate every fan (without asking for influence scores and online credentials). And yet another said that the music and business are different, enough so that it often pays to keep them separate.

But unlike rock stars, most professionals aren't supposed to be different on stage and off because, unless they are speakers/teachers on a stage, there is no stage. Online, people want professionals to be authentic much like they want rock stars to be authentic. And, for the most part, they are some of the most authentic, down-to-earth people I know. Why? Most of them save the acting for their performances. Right. The better the performances, the less you need to worry about the brand.

Finding Empathy: Can Anybody Do It?

Journalist, author, and screenwriter John Buchanan might have touched a nerve with his recent article, Anger Management, for the Conference Review Board. The article uses three high profile crisis communication scenarios of their own making in 2011: Netflix, Bank Of America, and Verizon.

Two of the three are still included on the "10 most hated companies in America." And then he points out why the three companies failed so miserably. They didn't make bad decisions, he wrote, they lacked empathy. I'm glad to read it. Empathy seems to be in short supply in business and communication. 

Maybe if business students studied empathy, ethics would be easier too. 

Empathy is the capacity to recognize and share feelings that are being experienced by another sentient or semi-sentient being. (Or, if you prefer, it's the ability to identify the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.) Most people don't apply it very often because the problem isn't limited to businesses.

Last year, Scientific American covered a study that found almost 75 percent of students today rate themselves as less empathic than the average student 30 years ago. What makes this especially frightening is that even though empathy is innate (even primates have it), social context overwrites it.

People are more inclined to make decisions based on their needs, exclusive of others. And when you look at the three case studies offered up by Buchanan, that is exactly what you will find. All three had to improve their bottom lines. And all three considered their options, exclusive of their customers.

It wasn't until all three received customer pushback via social media that they reversed their decisions. But even those reversals aren't really social media triumphs as much as temporary surrenders. Chances are that no one learned to be more empathetic. Their reversals were a means to quell the backlash.

Empathy isn't about picking sides, which is why people misunderstand it. 

Two of the assignments that students who take my Writing For Public Relations class receive are also lessons in empathy. One involves delivering bad news for a company forced to lay off workers. Another involves an employee who is hurt on the job (possibly because of a safety violation).

Inevitably, there are two common directions students take in handling the assignments. Either students ignore empathy all together and get on with what they perceive as the job or they exhibit empathy toward whomever they see as the underdog. But neither solution is truly empathetic and here's why.

Empathy isn't about understanding how underdogs feel. It's about understanding how everyone feels.

Last year, one of the better articles about empathy was written by Guy Winch for Psychology Today. He titled it "How to Test Your Empathy." I'm glad he titled it that because there are dozens of misleading empathy questionnaires and quizzes  online (e.g., feeling empathy during a movie doesn't mean beans). Instead of a questionnaire, he asks his readers to imagine one scenario. That's all it takes.

Believe it or not, I first learned about empathy because of my work in advertising. It was one of several great lessons written by David Ogilvy. "The consumer is not an idiot," he said. "She's your wife."

Fizzling Out: Kony 2012

While some people are calling Kony 2012 a resounding success to be emulated, others are pointing to what they called a paltry turnout to "cover the night" with Kony 2012 posters last April 20. The campaign failed to move people from the Internet to the streets beyond the gathering of a few people in select areas.

It's one of the failings of viral social media campaigns that fail to redirect interest and energy into a tangible outcome. People might have piled on the campaign online, but only the smallest of fractions took action. Even when April 20 rolled around as the first bellwether of the campaign, the majority of those who took an interest in the online film (or at least the popularity of it) lost interest or avoided it all together. In other words, most people heard the message and then shrugged their shoulders, some in disgust.

None of that means the campaign didn't have its noble moments or that Invisible Children didn't raise some additional dollars or enlist a few more activists that they didn't have before. But for nonprofits hoping to harness the Internet, emulating this so-called viral success story does more harm than good.

How Kony 2012 made people tune in and then tune out. 

While the case study isn't over per se (and Alexa isn't the most accurate measure), traffic spikes to  Invisible Children tell a different story than the one the organization insists happened. They flash a few singular poster shots, inferring that everyone woke up to cities blanketed in campaign material.

The real story shows that the campaign spiked in early March, spiked again when the filmmaker was arrested, and sustained only a fraction of interest on their first event day, April 20, before its awareness entered its final death throes. Invisible Children, in the interim, is attempting to salvage it all.

Having worked on several successful social cause campaigns with Amnesty International, March of Dimes, Acts Of Kindness, and AIDS.gov, I immediately knew spikes are all wrong. In those four campaigns (and others), the event day traffic spikes are 100 times greater than the launch, which is indicative of an event that cumulates into a specific action. People participate, take action, and raise more awareness than the campaign launch.

For the Kony 2012 campaign, people were made aware but most didn't take action. Worse, the rationale to the campaign might be best summed up with a study by Relevation Research, which found people who dump a brand online are more likely to distance themselves from the brand after they dump it. Once that happens, it is much more difficult to get their attention again, no matter how important (even more important) the next set of messages might be.

It's not that dissimilar to telemarketing callers and overindulgent direct mail. Consumers are generally receptive to the first call if they have a natural interest in the product or service. But if the telemarketer calls back over and over again (whether the person expressed an interest or not) or the direct mail/email spam begins to pile up, the consumer slides from mildly interested to disinterested to despondent to annoyed to retaliatory.

When controversy is the campaign, it only creates more controversy. 

In studying Kony 2012 as a living case study, there were dozens of details that campaign organizers overlooked. But the most pressing for cause marketers to avoid is centering campaigns on controversy.

Sure, controversy is one proven method to capture media attention. But the problem with controversy is that is cannot be effectively channeled into positive action. Instead, it's like a car accident — people rubberneck to look, are immediately taken by what they see, and then they keep driving.

For Kony 2012, the controversy mostly revolved around the notion that you have to make villains or villainy "famous" before people will take action against it. It's not true, despite being a common premise. Statistically, when people are faced with a problem that is perceived to be insurmountable, they are less likely to take action. Instead, they exhibit signs of learned helplessness.

The people that Invisible Children ought to "make famous" are not Kony and his cronies, but rather everyone else — the individuals taking action to bring Kony to justice and the victims who have become strong enough to move past their often horrific injuries and speak out. Likewise, the organization could do better than talking about what "they" set out to do, what "they" did, and what "they" are asking you to do next.

They didn't do anything beyond making a film and some bracelets to peddle. Sure, that is something. But it's also nothing compared to what some of "you" did. And highlighting specific individual accomplishments around the world would have likely redirected the focus on the better goal — putting an end to the issue once and for all.

This might seem like a small thing, but it isn't. If you want people to do good, the point of empowerment is proven not by the organization but by the collective action of individual people who believe and then demonstrate that the power of one among many can make a difference. But that doesn't seem to be what the Kony 2012 campaign is really about, which is why it is fizzling out.

Redefining Public Relations: Convergence Or Confusion

There are several things you can take away from the Current State Of The PR Industry (Annenberg Study 2012), a guest post on PR Squared, written by Burghardt Tenderich, associate director for the Strategic Communication and Public Relations Center at the USC Annenburg School for Communication and Journalism. But if you had to pick one: the field is in a state of change.

• There are significantly fewer agency-of-record relationships in the industry.
• The number of agencies that an organization hires has increased over time.
• The areas of specialization, including proximity, have become more significant.
• Social media is mainstream, whether public relations manages it or not.
• Public relations is being divided into tactical and strategic communication.

It's the last bullet that ought to raise eyebrows among public relations firms. It pinpoints why some firms, which sought specialization as a means to become more competitive, may have moved themselves further away from a strategic level of participation. As they become more known for specialties — planning special events, managing social networks, working with the media, crisis mitigation — they become less likely to work with executive management on a meaningful level.

Fewer firms manage the message. More firms are managed by it. 

One of the reasons, it seems to me, that more firms are being hired by organizations and fewer firms are being asked to manage the entire public relations component of a campaign is by accidental design. In developing their own comparison and contrast points, clients began to think of them as specialists.

This, along with the size of most firms, led to clients becoming more inclined to assign each firm smaller and smaller  "project work" such as Facebook, a special event, a product launch, a specific short-term campaign, etc. This benefits the organizations three-fold: it negates high monthly retainers, expands the potential reach of the organization (with each contracted firm handling its pool of contacts), and frees the client from having to perform too much task work.

A few years ago, I was brought in to to oversee one project managed much the same way. One firm handled New York, one firm handled Los Angeles, one firm handled secondary national markets, one firm handled radio stations, one firm worked with talent and street teams, and one firm handled social media. Along with these firms, there were four organizations designated as strategic partners.

There were two takeaways for me then. First, while the firms were invited to make suggestions, none of them were given the responsibility for a strategic plan. Second, each component was easier to replace if need be. It seems somewhat dangerous. All of them had made themselves reasonably replaceable.

Another outcome that I did not see at the time is hinted at in the full study released by USC Annenberg. The study notes that organizational communication/public relations budgets have increased but the fee allocation to an increasing number of public relations firms is shrinking. While the study points out that the increasing budgets exaggerate the chart, the takeaway is the same. The shift is toward tactical.

The number one reason agencies are hired is to increase arms and legs. 

While some firms are finding themselves more inclined to provide strategic or regional insight (the number two and number three reason to hire a firm), the majority of organizations hiring firms are looking to offset task work. This doesn't mean public relations is becoming less strategic as a whole, but it does demonstrate that there is a division occurring within the field.

Some public relations firms, much like internal departments, are gaining more relevance within the organization. In fact, according the Annenberg study, 60 percent of departments say they are involved in the senior-level decision making process and 70 percent say their recommendations are taken seriously. In other words, departments (along with a few firms) are increasing their relevance as strategic partners, but the majority of the industry is not.

While there is nothing wrong with this, it does illustrate a trend. Over the long term, it may diminish the importance of public relations firms despite the recent definition change proposed by the Public Relations Society of America in an effort to bolster the strategic importance of the industry. Or, at minimum, concentrate the most important strategic aspects of public relations to a smaller pool of strategic communication firms and in-house departments.

Branding Failure: Your Brand Is Not You

Professionals aren't the only ones struggling with the lack of social networking etiquette and the impact of errant tweets on so-called "personal brands." It seems that online friends, extended family members, and spouses can be the source of most online friction.

Even if someone carefully manicures their online presence and pedigree, it only takes a single tweet, comment, or picture from someone closest to you to undo everything in a day. One button click on Facebook can undo a decade of being an ideal "power couple" when someone changes their status from 'married' to 'its complicated'.

These seemingly harmless, sometimes quirky online episodes under the existing rules of social networks can set off a flurry of phone calls among family members, make connected employers think twice about whose head is clear enough to lead that big project, or even scare away the usual friendly suspects who normally subscribe to everything you share. It doesn't even have to be so overt, either.

Anything can happen, really. A couple of years ago, I was working with a candidate who took a pretty tough stand on illegal immigration. One of his followers, who the candidate hadn't spoken to in years, took exception to what he had to say, enough so that she started rallying against him on Facebook thread.

The entire episode exploded into a half-day session of angst as his followers split into decidedly different camps on the issue. But the real kicker was when her barely coherent argument was punctuated by the fact that she was his cousin, talking about illegal immigrants who were in his extended family. Yikes. He didn't even know it (and it didn't change his position). But there were consequences.

Does 'personal branding' mean we need 'couples branding' and 'family branding' too?

This is one of many reasons that personal branding doesn't work. And it is the main reason that I am always perplexed when social media professionals argue that personal branding ought to be an ever-constent concern. Yes, the same people who advise organizations can't control their brands are sometimes the same people advising individuals that they ought to control their online brands. Are they kidding?

If you think it's difficult to manage a message within an organization that can set some semblance of guidelines, then you might as well lower your expectations for personal branding where no such guidelines exist. Well, except for those folks who ask their better halves (and friends) to seek approval.

Can you imagine doing the same with all your friends and family members? 

Years ago, I wrote a little post about Tom Cruise to illustrate the pitfalls of personal branding and the paradox of expected behavior, whether or not someone pursues personal branding as a means to an end. The point I was trying to make then — the fragile brand theory — is the further away someone drifts from the reality of who they are, the more damaging any deviation from that brand becomes.

It also explained why some public figures are expected to be saints with no room for error and others are expected to be sinners with reckless abandon. But what I didn't write about then was that the entire image is dependent upon those who claim to know you best. And that means any personal branding deck is stacked with wild cards that undo anything that isn't authentically you or, worse, the contradiction of anything you've said or done, whether it is true or not.

Brands are fragile. Character is not. And even that is going to take hits. 

Recently, I reviewed this brilliant little thriller called Defending Jacob that underscores the point. The story, about an assistant district attorney whose son is accused of murder, illustrates just how fragile a brand can be. At the onset, the character is one of the most respected people within his community.

But when his son is accused, all those years of reputation building come undone. To make matters worse, his wife becomes fixated on the fact that the protagonist comes from a long line of violent men, the most immediate of which is incarcerated for murder. Never mind that he hadn't seen his father since age 5 or that he didn't share this dubious fact because of the baggage (and labels) that come with it; his wife still obsesses over whether or not she had a right to know before they were married.

Sure, the book is fiction. But the concept is not. People make judgments about all sorts of unrelated things, ranging from who you associate with to your extended family. Brands can't be controlled.

Five years ago, when online personal branding became the topic du jour, it all seemed easier. But that was only because there were fewer people actively engaged in social media. Nowadays, even those obscure family members (like the second cousin who always seemed like he came from another planet) and those long lost friends (like the one you ditched school with and told all sorts of secrets), can snap any brand you've built since then in a second. But those folks are only the tip of the iceberg. The person  sitting next to you is just as likely, even if they have no intention to do you any harm.

You can't control any of it. So you might as well be comfortable with it. It's just part of life. Live it.

Making Decisions: Are Consumers In Control?

I was sitting in a business meeting yesterday when someone posed an interesting point. Eighty percent of startups develop products they never intended, driven by the markets they never intended to enter as dictated by the consumer. Never mind that the figure — 80 percent — was anectodal and unattributed.

This thinking is all around us. Some people say that social media sparked a consumer revolution, one where executive edicts were traded up for crowd-sourced darlings. You know the story. Companies better listen to consumers or else. They know what they need and make everything better.

How does the public know what 'should be' when it doesn't know what 'could be?'

Sometimes the public is right. During the Bronze Age in Great Britain, which spanned 2100-750 BC, consumers had it right. The early metal work started by the Beaker culture continually improved over hundreds of years until the final phases when Britain and the rest of Europe produced classic leaf-shaped swords.

For all we know, consumers would have refined bronze work for several thousand years more (like some cultures around the world did) if it hadn't been for the inconvenient introduction of another metal that would eventually sweep across Europe between 800 BC and 400 AD (or so). Iron and steel changed everything, including the entire socio-economic system that made people comfortable.

But can you imagine the change if we were experiencing it today? Some corporations would have argued evolving from bronze to iron was idiotic. Not only is iron more difficult to smelt and more costly to shape, but consumers would also be complaining about higher prices for a stronger but more brittle metal.

That's all fine and good, I suppose, until those guys with the iron cut through your defenses.

So what if this so-called 80-20 rule is right? What do you want to do? 

Sometimes I think businesses hire too many people who guess at so-called guarantees. The reality in business, much like life, is that all models only work sometimes and all guarantees are guesses at best. And that makes the riddle of bronze vs. iron nothing more than a parlor trick.

What I mean by that is: most decisions are never as clear cut as "do we fulfill the public need for better bronze or go with the gut of the guy in the back room and build out our iron division." Instead, they are littered with intangibles. You know, the guy in the back room could just as feasibly be working on a ham sandwich, in which case refining bronze might be better than hurling lunch meat.

So, it really does depend on the team and our best guess, just as history teaches us. Right. Some people backed beta and others picked up VHS. Flash forward a few dozen years only to find out that both decisions were wrong because DVDs, er, Blu-Rays and digital files win for now.

All this leads to a different approach. It seems to me that business choices have nothing to do with sizing everything up into 'either' and 'or' columns. Companies are better off innovating products and services that consumers have never seen and then refining those innovations once they are released in the marketplace based on consumer input, while keeping a watchful eye any inspirations that occur within every marketplace with every launch. That, of course, and everything needs to be weighed against what's next — information and ideas and innovations that consumers know nothing about it.

Ergo, Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion because the guy in the buyer's back room had just as much time but came up with a ham sandwich. They called it Timeline. Meanwhile, Instragram went niche.

Branding: Why I Stopped Worrying About Being Batman

There has been plenty of buzz-up over Peter Shankman's declaration that people have one brand — not personal or professional (hat tip: Olivier Blanchard). And while this verdict has garnered some attention because Shankman is well followed, the epiphany isn't so special.

It has always been true, even if "brand" is the wrong word. He's talking about character.

"Every single day, someone directs me to their LinkedIn profile to learn more about them. You know what I do when they do that?" Shankman says. "I go right to Facebook and search on their name there. Why? Because I know they're on their best behavior on LinkedIn, but on Facebook, they're going to be 'real.' Guess what? I'm not the only person who thinks this way."

In his example, he's right. People share different things in different places.

So unless you are a superhero — Superman, Batman, Spiderman,  Iron Man, and the like — there is no division between your personal and professional lives. In fact, superheroes aren't so good at having two either. Even people who swap their public personas with secret identities by finding the closest phone booth or sliding down a bat pole, tend to struggle in attempting to juggle multiple personalities.

But that is not to say Shankman is right. He is presenting a conversation starter, not a conclusion.

People ought to give up on brands. People ought to give up on judgments. 

As a society, we set different behavioral boundaries in different places: Someone might behave differently in church than they would at the local pub. It's a mistake to think just because you are exposed to someone at only one location or the other somehow means they are pulling a fast one.

On the contrary, the fact that they exhibit appropriate behaviors in two different environments is admirable. It demonstrates how they can adapt to a variety of social settings. In fact, if people acted the same in church as they did in a pub, you might be more concerned about them.

The same can be said about social networks too. People act differently on Facebook and LinkedIn because each community has different behavioral expectations. And, for many people who work in communication-related fields, we probably have a lot more than merely two. Everyone does, really.

Given that, the opposite of what Shankman is getting at bears truth too. People who are able to encapsulate their entirety into a single "brand" that consists of readily available attributes would be remarkably 1-dimensional and probably boring. At minimum, they are most likely faking it.

Let's face it. If you can fit everything about yourself within the confines of an elevator speech that people can actually remember, then you have a bigger problem than figuring out what to write down on the cocktail napkin so you can commit it to memory. Well-rounded people are not organizations where a mission, vision, and voice encompasses an agreed upon direction for every facet of operations.

In fact, this chronic need to ferret out the "truth about people," as Shankman suggests, says more about those lurkers than it could ever say about the people they investigate. Short of discovering someone is ethically and morally dysfunctional or engaged in something illegal, why can't we learn to accept what people want to share with us?

How I learned to stop worrying about my brand like Batman.

When I was just beginning my career, long before social media, I was especially concerned about my professional brand. I would literally adopt a different demeanor, dress, and attitude to exhibit a certain sense of serious professionalism to offset my youthful age, a barrier for many overly judgmental prospects.

While it worked well enough, there was some consequence. Being overtly aware of everything you say, do, and share (as a by-product of what you project) can be stifling. It also creates the propensity for fear and doubt because purposely exhibiting certain qualities also means chronically keeping score.

Isn't that the fundamental reason most people are afraid to speak in public? They are too worried about what other people might think of them. Did they like what I said? Do they see me as an expert? Do they agree with my conclusions? And so on and so forth.

It was too maddening to maintain. So, I gave it up. Instead, I decided to adopt a basic principle. I care what people think, but I don't care what they might think of me. Why should I? I'm a complex person.

People are too complex for a single brand. Get over it.

I like Mozart as much as metal (as well as alternative, punk, country, rap, hip hop, folk, etc.). I am both fiscally conservative and socially committed. I have faith, but don't measure others against my beliefs. I enjoy clinical books that some people call boorish and contemporary books that others call controversial. I wear a suit when the occasion calls for one, and Doc Martens when it does not.

I could fill a million file cabinets with contradictory likes and another million with things that I haven't made up my mind about. And I certainly don't want to share them all with everyone or, in some cases, with anyone. So what?

If someone is going to imagine a "brand" about me, it will likely depend upon the setting where they meet me offline. So why ought it be any different online? When I eventually decided to make a public page beyond my personal account on Facebook a few weeks ago, it had nothing to do with branding or ego and everything to do with privacy and context.

In other words, while some subjects cross over, others do not. People who want to read about communication-related topics are a little less interested in commentaries about music, literature, and movies. People who want to contact me for a job don't really need to know that I went to a musical production a few nights ago. People whom I have a conversation on Twitter don't need to be part of the conversations I have with select friends and family (and don't really want to be, either).

Sure, Shankman is right that the boundaries between personal and professional sometimes blur, but the course correction doesn't need to be a burden to the individual so much. It needs to burden society.

Just because information exists doesn't mean we need to rifle through it all like an investigative reporter, looking for way to add up the labels and deliver a judgement. If we do need to do that, then it might say more about our own characters than anything we can uncover.

Going Social: NASA Turns Earth Day Blue

While NASA sometimes struggles with public relations to justify loftier goals and big ideas like a moon colony, there is no doubt that the agency is starting to find footing with social media. While the program is best described as fledgling (only because it lacks cohesion), there is something that can be learned from it.

Specifically, NASA is hosting Earth Day activities for three days in Washington D.C. and two days in Long Beach, Calif., but its physical presence is only the beginning of its efforts in support of Earth Day. Portions of the program will take advantage of real-time communication and engagement.

How NASA Communicates On Earth Day. 

• National Mall in Washington D.C. The main location will be held in Washington D.C., with three days of displays and presentations open to the public at the "NASA Village," mostly held from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. today, and 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. On Friday, there will also be live presentations hosted on the Earth Day Network stage (12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW).

• Live Webcast And Scientist Chat. Focusing on A High-Tech Checkup of Earth's Vital Signs on Saturday, NASA scientists will take people on a world tour from the vantage point of space, providing insights that can only be made possible from orbiting sensors. The webcast is scheduled to air 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday, April 21. It will be viewed online at the NASA Village.

• NASA Earth Day Video Contest. Independent of these efforts, NASA is asking people to share their vision of what NASA's exploration of Earth means by creating a short 15-second to 2-minute video. The contest is being hosted by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and participants are invited to draw from NASA's image gallery. Submissions will be accepted April 22 to May 31.

• NASA Center Activities, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Other than being mentioned via NASA's Twitter and Facebook accounts, there will be another location-based event on Saturday and Sunday. Held at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, Calif., attendees will share science research about our ocean planet, using exhibits and hands-on learning demonstrations for all ages.

How NASA Could Have Communicated Earth Day. 

All of the above efforts are admirable and certainly a step in the right direction, especially because they employ both physical locations and social media. But I cannot help wondering how NASA could have created a campaign with a greater national or global scope, something that could have captivated the world. Such a campaign might have included:

• YouTube video contest leading up to the Earth Day event (as opposed to after the fact).
• A social media campaign encouraging the media and bloggers to support an event.
• Ten physical locations supporting three days of featured events at staggered times (plus exhibits).
• The eleventh location would naturally be held on the International Space Station.
• A dedicated Ustream program that cuts into main events at each location on a rotating basis.
• Social media support for all of those rotating activities over the course of three days.

The concept is only a thumbnail, but NASA has enough locations around the United States to tighten its proximity to the public across the country — Texas, New Mexico, and Florida not withstanding. Such an effort could possibly bring the nation together on the successes of NASA not just in space, but on planet Earth as well.

Then again, I've never understood why this country hasn't made an effort to declare a national Space Day (of observance) on July 20, enabling NASA to make Earth Day a minor practice run for a much bigger event. After all, July 20 remains one of humankind's greatest accomplishments, underscoring that our destiny points to the stars if we ever want to gain a better perspective about the planet we call home. It seems to me, we don't think about space exploration enough.

Making Lures: Oooo Pinterest Is So Pretty

Do you remember Dory being hypnotized by a pretty little light in the animated film Finding Nemo by Disney? Or maybe you remember how much fun she had bouncing a squishy little jellyfish. Or maybe you remember how much fun they had swimming with a shark until its addiction to white meat kicked in.

Pinterest is filled with those moments. But it's not Pinterest you have to worry about. 

There aren't so many lures on Pinterest as there are lures off Pinterest — enough tips, tactics, and strategies to game the buzzed up social sharing network to fill an ocean. Learn to say no to them.

There is no such thing as a Pinterest strategy, let alone eight of them. And pitching doesn't have much to do with repinning other people's pins just to attract attention to a wall of marketing fodder on a network. In fact, the entire reciprocal push of other people's stuff so they will push yours is becoming passé. People see through it, mostly.

There are always those legal considerations too. Plopping every photo from your company on Pinterest is paramount to giving up any copyrights (which isn't so bad unless you're a photographer or those pics have monetary value). And that doesn't even account for accidental repinning infringements, with your company being much more interesting to any infringed party than a lone network participant.

But I don't really want to get too wrapped up in making a win-lose column about Pinterest as much as I want to offer up some common sense. When your communication strategy begins to become so benign that you count pins, repins, likes, and comments as your objective, what you're really saying is that you have nothing to offer. Do something different with Pinterest if you are going to use it. It's simple.

The best "strategy" for Pinterest is to use it like participants do. Don't try to game it for glory. 

The best online communication comes from natural interests that are designed with the company's intent in mind, not a means to grab up flash-in-the-pan attention. If anything, all those tactics tend to backfire.

• Review your organization's mission, vision, and values.
• Elevate your plan to see if the network augments anything.
• Consider relevant content you can share at the right time.
• Become a participant without any agenda other than quality.
• Work at being a beneficial presence not someone who benefits.

That's my list of five, but it might not make sense for anyone who hasn't seen it through to execution. Personally, I enjoy Pinterest but it doesn't fit this marcom slant beyond the occasional educational and psychological threads. So I don't develop sneaky ways to force it.

The platform is much more in sync with Liquid [Hip], a music, film, fashion, and travel review site. But even with relevant content, we didn't make a marketing channel to push anything. Instead, I integrate what other under-the-radar creative people find with our own. And mostly, they pin it before we do.

The idea is to make like-minded quality content indistinguishable to the content we create — which is precisely how people use networks without agendas. Most people pin to express something. Maybe you can too.

For example, if you have a parks and recreation department, maybe you could host a beautiful park photography board (with photographer permissions). If you are a tech company, maybe you can share like-minded innovations. If you are a restaurant, maybe you can highlight recipes that you have tried to make at home (along with some from your establishment). If you are a general contractor, maybe you can have a board that celebrates architecture or designers. And the list goes on...

There isn't any mystery to using Pinterest. The only mystery is how you can avoid the temptation to use it for anything other than the intent of the network. It isn't really about ROI as much as market position.

Specifically, you have to ask if you are one of them or just trying to use them. If it's the latter, skip the pinning and mind the "teaching" lures that promise marketing. Some lights have ugliness attached.

Social Networking: Moms Know Best

If you have ever wondered why some companies cater to moms more than any other group online, a new study by Performics, a marketing firm owned by Publicis Groupe, recently shared its answer. After studying nearly 3,000 active U.S. social networkers, the firm concluded that mothers were "more versatile, present, active and engaged users of social networking sites, compared to other women."

Not only were mothers 61 percent more likely than other women to own a smart phone, they are also more likely to be active on social networking sites. Specifically, they were 16 percent more likely to visit Facebook and 46 percent more likely to visit Google+ on a daily basis.

But even outside of the study, there is ample evidence of how important moms can be to a social network. In fact, despite noted policy problems, moms are the catalysts behind the success of Pinterest, which reported 16.23 million unique users last February.

It is now one of the most active social networks online despite that 80 percent of its participants were female (March 2012). And, according to another study, almost all "mom bloggers" are actively engaged in Pinterest (as much as 98 percent) with  90 percent describing it as fun, 67 percent using it for organization, and 60 percent browsing beautiful things.

Do you know what other social network moms embraced? Right. A little app called Instagram that Facebook recently purchased for $1 billion. The irony? Facebook isn't among many moms' favorite social networks, despite them visiting it on a daily basis to connect and keep up.

Moms have a long history of engaging and organizing on social networks. 

When most people look back at some of the most spirited successes and failures online, most of them are linked to moms. They were the catalyst behind the Motrin headache, were part of the GAP logo retraction, continue to be part of McDonald's outreach efforts, prompted one of the largest recalls in Maytag history, and were among the first to express their distaste over the Tropicana logo change too.

In terms of the biggest disasters mentioned above, the reasons seem clear enough. Moms are reported to be 75 percent more likely than other women to trust information they receive from companies through social networking sites. And, as a result, they tend to react more aggressively when that trust is broken.

Marketing to moms might make marketers think twice about quick fixes. 

There have always been benefits to including moms in the online marketing mix. But there are some downsides for companies that are reckless with their messaging. Moms, unlike many other groups, have a greater awareness and more experience influencing, participating with, and promoting brands.

View more presentations from Performics

They are 45 percent more likely to make a purchase as a result of a recommendation on a social networking site than other women, including apparel (54 percent more likely), cars (64 percent more likely), and travel (46 percent more likely). They are also more likely to recommend companies/brands via social sites (34 percent), discuss companies/brands on social sites after seeing an ad elsewhere (48 percent), talk about companies/brands they follow on Facebook (24 percent), link to a company/brand ad (23 percent), post a company/brand ad (53 percent), and share interesting or relevant content about a company/brand (50 percent).

In other words, if your company isn't thinking about moms, then it isn't thinking. And if your company isn't thinking, these moms will be among the first to remind you who really knows best.